To be honest, it is one I havent thought about. I think most atheists would say that religion and the world in general would look very different if God actually existed. Part of the reason many atheists reject the possibility of God is because they find the idea does not mesh with their experience of the world- one example would of course be the problem of evil, but there are many other examples as well.

It becomes a difficult question to answer "what would the world look like if an omni- God existed" and then to go on and answer if this world is personally appealing.

I will say that I wish I could believe in God, I wish I could accept Christianity. Many Christian communities have a lot to offer and I do think Christianity offers a peace of mind that is hard to find in atheism. I honestly believe my life would be a lot easier if I could find Christianity convincing. I have even tried going to Universalist Churches as a sort of religious substitute, but man Id rather go to most Christian Churches than the Universalist one I went to.

First, you must differentiate between God as in a deity who created the world and the God(s) of organized religion.

Most atheists will tell you that they are happy God does not exist, and that is usually because of objections they have to religions' holy books. Not because of the concept of a deity who created the universe, and maybe created an afterlife and cares about us.

However, the kneejerk reaction to most atheists discoveries that God does not exist is is not a pleasant one. Nobody really wants to believe that most of the world - including, in all likelihood, parents, teachers, friends, etc - is completely and utterly wrong about religion. It feels unpleasant and alienating. This "discovery" usually comes after trying and failing to justify the religion the atheist in question was brought up with, assuming he was brought up with one, or trying and failing to convince himself that there's a way to survive beyond death.

As time goes on most atheists grow to value what they believe is truth and intellectual honesty. But there can be no denying that each human being has an inherent desire to a) believe what families, friends, and communities believe, and the odds are that most of these are religious b) in some way cope with the helpless feeling of being exposed to blind nature, and believe that all things really have some meaning and aren't just random c) in some way evade death. Religion almost always provides b) and c), and usually provides a) since most people are religious.

b) and c) are the reasons why religion exists to begin with, since it is a concept created by the most primitive of men.

Because it isn't necessary. The God That Exists As Actuality is sufficient.

The One True God speaks to everyone, and not everyone listens. God is fine as God is. Let those who defy God be willing slaves to those who actually know God.

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

I base my beliefs as set I can on what is true, not on what I'd like to be true.

Atheism is an irrational position. How can one confined to understand and perceive only that which exists in the conscious world, and who can only rationalize with secular logic, deduce ANYTHING on the existence of a power outside those spheres of comprehension? If you honestly believe you can figure out the TRUTH about the existence of a higher power, like your comment implies, then you're mistaken. Agnosticism is the only rational position.

If not, why not?

I don't see any use for such a thing.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 10/26/2011 6:17:41 AM, 000ike wrote:How can one confined to understand and perceive only that which exists in the conscious world, and who can only rationalize with secular logic, deduce ANYTHING on the existence of a power outside those spheres of comprehension?

I thought you were making an argument here, and I was ready to respond - but then I realised 'conscious world' and 'secular logic' don't actually mean anything and you're just making stuff up.

At 10/26/2011 6:17:41 AM, 000ike wrote:How can one confined to understand and perceive only that which exists in the conscious world, and who can only rationalize with secular logic, deduce ANYTHING on the existence of a power outside those spheres of comprehension?

I thought you were making an argument here, and I was ready to respond - but then I realised 'conscious world' and 'secular logic' don't actually mean anything and you're just making stuff up.

Conscious world: The things you see, matter, the state of awareness,

Secular Logic: Logic that appeals to the intellect, bound to the world you live in and observe.

Does that make sense to you now?

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 10/26/2011 6:33:11 AM, 000ike wrote:Conscious world: The things you see, matter, the state of awareness,

Except ALL theistic traditions claim that a God exists who interacts with such a world in various ways, so this is irrelevant.

Secular Logic: Logic that appeals to the intellect, bound to the world you live in and observe.

All sensible theistic traditions claim that God is a being bound by logic, so no problem here.

Does that make sense to you now?

Just barely, but I think you're wrong.

Yeah I agree with you, that's why I advocate agnosticism as opposed to atheism, or Christian Theism. Agnosticism works with the pretense that a higher power could not interact with us. Christianity and atheism are equally irrational, because they both assume knowledge they cannot ever observe or comprehend.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 10/26/2011 6:42:29 AM, 000ike wrote:Yeah I agree with you, that's why I advocate agnosticism as opposed to atheism, or Christian Theism. Agnosticism works with the pretense that a higher power could not interact with us. Christianity and atheism are equally irrational, because they both assume knowledge they cannot ever observe or comprehend.

At 10/26/2011 6:42:29 AM, 000ike wrote:Yeah I agree with you, that's why I advocate agnosticism as opposed to atheism, or Christian Theism. Agnosticism works with the pretense that a higher power could not interact with us. Christianity and atheism are equally irrational, because they both assume knowledge they cannot ever observe or comprehend.

Um, okay. What justifies that pretense?

If a higher power could interact with us, it would be observable. Anything that affects people PHYSICALLY is observable. So, this means that miracles are impossible, there was no global flood mysteriously created, there is no such thing as resurrection. By physically, I mean: capable of causing a change, or effect. So it would include people supposedly "talking to God", that too would be impossible.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 10/26/2011 6:42:29 AM, 000ike wrote:Yeah I agree with you, that's why I advocate agnosticism as opposed to atheism, or Christian Theism. Agnosticism works with the pretense that a higher power could not interact with us. Christianity and atheism are equally irrational, because they both assume knowledge they cannot ever observe or comprehend.

Um, okay. What justifies that pretense?

If a higher power could interact with us, it would be observable. Anything that affects people PHYSICALLY is observable. So, this means that miracles are impossible, there was no global flood mysteriously created, there is no such thing as resurrection. By physically, I mean: capable of causing a change, or effect. So it would include people supposedly "talking to God", that too would be impossible.

Agnosticism is a position of uncertainty, more so that is than is theism or atheism.

As you say if there was an interventionist God it would be possible to observe it or its actions, all attempts to do so have failed atheism is a rational position.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

At 10/26/2011 6:42:29 AM, 000ike wrote:Yeah I agree with you, that's why I advocate agnosticism as opposed to atheism, or Christian Theism. Agnosticism works with the pretense that a higher power could not interact with us. Christianity and atheism are equally irrational, because they both assume knowledge they cannot ever observe or comprehend.

Um, okay. What justifies that pretense?

If a higher power could interact with us, it would be observable. Anything that affects people PHYSICALLY is observable. So, this means that miracles are impossible, there was no global flood mysteriously created, there is no such thing as resurrection. By physically, I mean: capable of causing a change, or effect. So it would include people supposedly "talking to God", that too would be impossible.

Agnosticism is a position of uncertainty, more so that is than is theism or atheism.

As you say if there was an interventionist God it would be possible to observe it or its actions, all attempts to do so have failed atheism is a rational position.

All that proves is that there is no interventionist God. Assumes there is no God all together.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 10/26/2011 6:42:29 AM, 000ike wrote:Yeah I agree with you, that's why I advocate agnosticism as opposed to atheism, or Christian Theism. Agnosticism works with the pretense that a higher power could not interact with us. Christianity and atheism are equally irrational, because they both assume knowledge they cannot ever observe or comprehend.

Um, okay. What justifies that pretense?

If a higher power could interact with us, it would be observable. Anything that affects people PHYSICALLY is observable. So, this means that miracles are impossible, there was no global flood mysteriously created, there is no such thing as resurrection. By physically, I mean: capable of causing a change, or effect. So it would include people supposedly "talking to God", that too would be impossible.

Agnosticism is a position of uncertainty, more so that is than is theism or atheism.

As you say if there was an interventionist God it would be possible to observe it or its actions, all attempts to do so have failed atheism is a rational position.

All that proves is that there is no interventionist God. Atheism assumes there is no God all together.

my bad

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 10/26/2011 6:42:29 AM, 000ike wrote:Yeah I agree with you, that's why I advocate agnosticism as opposed to atheism, or Christian Theism. Agnosticism works with the pretense that a higher power could not interact with us. Christianity and atheism are equally irrational, because they both assume knowledge they cannot ever observe or comprehend.

Um, okay. What justifies that pretense?

If a higher power could interact with us, it would be observable. Anything that affects people PHYSICALLY is observable. So, this means that miracles are impossible, there was no global flood mysteriously created, there is no such thing as resurrection. By physically, I mean: capable of causing a change, or effect. So it would include people supposedly "talking to God", that too would be impossible.

Agnosticism is a position of uncertainty, more so that is than is theism or atheism.

As you say if there was an interventionist God it would be possible to observe it or its actions, all attempts to do so have failed atheism is a rational position.

All that proves is that there is no interventionist God. Assumes there is no God all together.

So you are telling us that it is irrational to not believe in something that is invisible, undetectable and inactive when we have no reason to suspect it is there in the first place?

Good luck with that.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

So you are telling us that it is irrational to not believe in something that is invisible, undetectable and inactive when we have no reason to suspect it is there in the first place?

Good luck with that.

You twisted my words. What I said was that it is irrational to say you KNOW FOR SURE that something invisible undetectable and inactive does not exist. THAT is irrational. In fact, you gave me a counter to the theist argument, not to the agnostic one. Why did you even write that comment?

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

So you are telling us that it is irrational to not believe in something that is invisible, undetectable and inactive when we have no reason to suspect it is there in the first place?

Good luck with that.

You twisted my words. What I said was that it is irrational to say you KNOW FOR SURE that something invisible undetectable and inactive does not exist. THAT is irrational. In fact, you gave me a counter to the theist argument, not to the agnostic one. Why did you even write that comment?

Oh my bad, you are simply strawmanning the atheist position.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

So you are telling us that it is irrational to not believe in something that is invisible, undetectable and inactive when we have no reason to suspect it is there in the first place?

Good luck with that.

You twisted my words. What I said was that it is irrational to say you KNOW FOR SURE that something invisible undetectable and inactive does not exist. THAT is irrational. In fact, you gave me a counter to the theist argument, not to the agnostic one. Why did you even write that comment?

Oh my bad, you are simply strawmanning the atheist position.

This is getting silly, you're giving me nothing but curt bursts of fallacious statements. Tell me how I'm strawmanning the atheist position, and then I will actually have the basis to refute that.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

So you are telling us that it is irrational to not believe in something that is invisible, undetectable and inactive when we have no reason to suspect it is there in the first place?

Good luck with that.

You twisted my words. What I said was that it is irrational to say you KNOW FOR SURE that something invisible undetectable and inactive does not exist. THAT is irrational. In fact, you gave me a counter to the theist argument, not to the agnostic one. Why did you even write that comment?

Oh my bad, you are simply strawmanning the atheist position.

This is getting silly, you're giving me nothing but curt bursts of fallacious statements. Tell me how I'm strawmanning the atheist position, and then I will actually have the basis to refute that.

I've bolded it, you are intelligent enough and have been here long enough to know that atheism need not be an absolutist position.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

So you are telling us that it is irrational to not believe in something that is invisible, undetectable and inactive when we have no reason to suspect it is there in the first place?

Good luck with that.

You twisted my words. What I said was that it is irrational to say you KNOW FOR SURE that something invisible undetectable and inactive does not exist. THAT is irrational. In fact, you gave me a counter to the theist argument, not to the agnostic one. Why did you even write that comment?

Oh my bad, you are simply strawmanning the atheist position.

This is getting silly, you're giving me nothing but curt bursts of fallacious statements. Tell me how I'm strawmanning the atheist position, and then I will actually have the basis to refute that.

I've bolded it, you are intelligent enough and have been here long enough to know that atheism need not be an absolutist position.

I understand atheism to be absolutist, agnostic atheism to be open to the possibility of the existence of God. I'm arguing that the agnostic position is more rational. Now, which are you promoting?

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

So you are telling us that it is irrational to not believe in something that is invisible, undetectable and inactive when we have no reason to suspect it is there in the first place?

Good luck with that.

You twisted my words. What I said was that it is irrational to say you KNOW FOR SURE that something invisible undetectable and inactive does not exist. THAT is irrational. In fact, you gave me a counter to the theist argument, not to the agnostic one. Why did you even write that comment?

Oh my bad, you are simply strawmanning the atheist position.

This is getting silly, you're giving me nothing but curt bursts of fallacious statements. Tell me how I'm strawmanning the atheist position, and then I will actually have the basis to refute that.

I've bolded it, you are intelligent enough and have been here long enough to know that atheism need not be an absolutist position.

I understand atheism to be absolutist, agnostic atheism to be open to the possibility of the existence of God. I'm arguing that the agnostic position is more rational. Now, which are you promoting?

Almost every atheist is an agnostic atheist under your definition. You should have defined who you were attacking.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

Going back to the original question, I think if we are talking about the christian or abrahamic god, no way in hell would I create that monster, but if we are talking about a god who actually meets the omnis that idiots claim that monster meet, then I probably would.

DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.

So you are telling us that it is irrational to not believe in something that is invisible, undetectable and inactive when we have no reason to suspect it is there in the first place?

Good luck with that.

You twisted my words. What I said was that it is irrational to say you KNOW FOR SURE that something invisible undetectable and inactive does not exist. THAT is irrational. In fact, you gave me a counter to the theist argument, not to the agnostic one. Why did you even write that comment?

Oh my bad, you are simply strawmanning the atheist position.

This is getting silly, you're giving me nothing but curt bursts of fallacious statements. Tell me how I'm strawmanning the atheist position, and then I will actually have the basis to refute that.

I've bolded it, you are intelligent enough and have been here long enough to know that atheism need not be an absolutist position.

I understand atheism to be absolutist, agnostic atheism to be open to the possibility of the existence of God. I'm arguing that the agnostic position is more rational. Now, which are you promoting?

Almost every atheist is an agnostic atheist under your definition. You should have defined who you were attacking.

uh, no. Most atheist's would say, "God does not exist," instead of "I don't think God exists," including you, and from the arguments you make, it also has the same assumption. You try to prove the nonexistence of God, as all gnostic (if thats a word) atheists do. How is that agnostic atheism?

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

Atheism is an irrational position. How can one confined to understand and perceive only that which exists in the conscious world, and who can only rationalize with secular logic, deduce ANYTHING on the existence of a power outside those spheres of comprehension? If you honestly believe you can figure out the TRUTH about the existence of a higher power, like your comment implies, then you're mistaken. Agnosticism is the only rational position.

Resolved: Atheism is an irrational position; agnosticism is the only rational position.

Atheism is an irrational position. How can one confined to understand and perceive only that which exists in the conscious world, and who can only rationalize with secular logic, deduce ANYTHING on the existence of a power outside those spheres of comprehension? If you honestly believe you can figure out the TRUTH about the existence of a higher power, like your comment implies, then you're mistaken. Agnosticism is the only rational position.

Resolved: Atheism is an irrational position; agnosticism is the only rational position.

I challenge you to a debate.

I don't have the time for fullscale debates. Why do you think atheism is rational?

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault